Stagler Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Not that I know of. The reason for this (I would think) is b/c we are not interested in making the Grad into a point strike weapon - it is an area saturation one. Hence why we are going for various cluster options (mines, general purpose and seeking AT sub munitions, ECM modules). Tbh, I dont think it is you guys that are building them you dont have much in that way of capability yet, it is the israelis to sell off the shelf. Whos to say that you guys wont buy some to check them out then adopt the technology? it is 2017 after all Edited February 1, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) ikalugin, I understand your point about starting a thread, but your "Where?" confused me. If you're talking about the TO&E for that Penchenga based Brigade with the T-80s, then that's what I was referring to, the 200th Independent Motor Rifle Brigade for which the embedded large format org chart is here. I have no idea, though, how representative this is or isn't of current baseline Brigade structure. This chart, unlike the one for the Polish units on Wiki, doesn't list the actual weapons, merely their categories, which is both annoying and creates more work in terms of identifying the weapon types and quantities in the only functionally described units. For example, I deduce the Artillery-Missile Battery has to be the Tunguska, since I know of nothing else, save Pantsir, matching that description, but were we to do this drill for the US, that same descriptor would apply to the poor sad Avenger system, which I deem a national embarrassment. Maybe we should buy Tor, but only if we can be sure of getting the homeland version? This worked out very well for Ukraine when the Tu-22M3/BACKFIRE C met a Ukrainian Buk M1/SA-11 GADFLY. The RWR didn't react because the computers weren't programmed to see one as a threat. Precisely the same nightmare the US faced when it discovered the existence of War Reserve Frequencies. Returning to my main question, from what I can tell, there is no regimental artillery at all, just a mortar battery (how many, what type?). Obviously, this doesn't factor in things like the AGS-17, but I'm looking for the larger stuff anyway. The main FS horsepower lies in the Brigade's 2 x SPH Battalion and 1 x MRL Battalion. What's the SPH, and what's the MRL. Regards, John Kettler Edited February 1, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Tbh, I dont think it is you guys that are building them you dont have much in that way of capability yet, it is the israelis to sell off the shelf. Whos to say that you guys wont buy some to check them out then adopt the technology? it is 2017 after all I think it is less about the capability to build such weapon than the requirement to have it, I mean what for would you use such rounds? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 ikalugin, I understand your point about starting a thread, but your "Where?" confused me. If you're talking about the TO&E for that Penchenga based Brigade with the T-80s, then that's what I was referring to, the 200th Independent Motor Rifle Brigade for which the embedded large format org chart is here. I have no idea, though, how representative this is or isn't of current baseline Brigade structure. This chart, unlike the one for the Polish units on Wiki, doesn't list the actual weapons, merely their categories, which is both annoying and creates more work in terms of identifying the weapon types and quantities in the only functionally described units. For example, I deduce the Artillery-Missile Battery has to be the Tunguska, since I know of nothing else, save Pantsir, matching that description, but were we to do this drill for the US, that same descriptor would apply to the poor sad Avenger system, which I deem a national embarrassment. Maybe we should buy Tor, but only if we can be sure of getting the homeland version? This worked out very well for Ukraine when the Tu-22M3/BACKFIRE C met a Ukrainian Buk M1/SA-11 GADFLY. The RWR didn't react because the computers weren't programmed to see one as a threat. Precisely the same nightmare the US faced when it discovered the existence of War Reserve Frequencies. Returning to my main question, from what I can tell, there is no regimental artillery at all, just a mortar battery (how many, what type?). Obviously, this doesn't factor in things like the AGS-17, but I'm looking for the larger stuff anyway. The main FS horsepower lies in the Brigade's 2 x SPH Battalion and 1 x MRL Battalion. What's the SPH, and what's the MRL. Regards, John Kettler To all intents and purposes there are 2 TnkRs and 2 MRRs in our armed forces, is it their OOBs you desire to see? Most of our Ground Forces are made out of BDes, the 200th BDe is fairly representative, I could provide you with a more accurate generic OOB if you wish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I think it is less about the capability to build such weapon than the requirement to have it, I mean what for would you use such rounds? Precision strike with a minimum of collateral damage?... Launching one round to destroy a target instead of 24? Its so very Russian of you not to think of this as a utility 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Precision strike with a minimum of collateral damage?... Launching one round to destroy a target instead of 24? Its so very Russian of you not to think of this as a utility You have got the tube artillery systems for this task. Grad is built for an entirely different purpose, using it for such tasks is like trying to use shotgun in the role of DMR. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) ikalugin, I do desire exactly those OOBs, and I think there ought to be a separate thread for OOB discussions. That way, we don't have to chase them down over several separate threads. May not be an issue for you, but it sure is for me, since my memory is highly variable, and built-in Search is poor, to put it kindly. Regards, John Kettler Edited February 1, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Err, so you want regimental but not divisional OOB? Ok. To answer your question about the Grads though - they are issued at BDe level at the moment and act as the hammer to strike at enemy concentrations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 You have got the tube artillery systems for this task. Grad is built for an entirely different purpose, using it for such tasks is like trying to use shotgun in the role of DMR. Using it for that task is like using the M270 for.... Oh wait. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Using it for that task is like using the M270 for.... Oh wait. It is, MLRS is used in that role, I know. However, MLRS is not comparable with Grad, but rather with the high end systems such as the Smerch and Uragan. I mean, you don't ask why TOS-1 lacks GPS guided rounds, do you? Grad is used in the role of cluster grid square removal system on BDe level, not precise deep strike system such as Smerch or new unitaric MLRS rounds. Edited February 1, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 ikalugin, I do desire exactly those OOBs, and I think there ought to be a separate thread for OOB discussions. That way, we don't have to chase them down over several separate threads. May not be an issue for you, but it sure is for me, since my memory is highly variable, and built-in Search is poor, to put it kindly. Regards, John Kettler The confusion here is that only two units in the Russian Army are currently using Division/Regimental organization (4th Tank Division and 2nd Motor Rifle Division), and these orgs are not the old division/regimental orgs but something leaner. All other units are on a brigade/battalion org (as seen with 200th MRBde). So you are asking for something standard that is not standard at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The confusion here is that only two units in the Russian Army are currently using Division/Regimental organization (4th Tank Division and 2nd Motor Rifle Division), and these orgs are not the old division/regimental orgs but something leaner. All other units are on a brigade/battalion org (as seen with 200th MRBde). So you are asking for something standard that is not standard at all. True, however as we are going though the 2nd wave of the reform, the OOBs are subject to change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 ikalugin and akd, Part of the problem here is that a significant chunk of my once extensive Russian military knowledge base has exceeded its Sell By date and is either almost useless or flatly and dangerously wrong. What I'd like to know, starting as far up the command chain as you deem necessary: Brigade, Division, what have you--what the TO&E looks like, breaking it down from there as you descend to lower levels. Ideally, I want a complete wiring diagram and full breakdowns on everything (troops, AFV, other vehicles, weapons). If you could somehow get it down to what's in each BMP, BTR and so on, I might caper about. To see what I mean, look at this PDF for FM-100-2-3, The Soviet Army: Troops, Organization and Equipment, pages 4-140 until you hit the Artillery Regiment wiring diagram. Would give a page number, but none is shown. If you can provide such glorious detail, that'd be magical, but I'm so far behind the power curve right now I'm like the man dying of thirst in the desert. "Water! Water!" I barely croak, from lips so split and dessicated they don't bleed anymore. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Primary unit type is a Motorised Rifle BDe, example of which was provided above. You get a few odd ones such as one TD and one MRD, Tnk BDe, 18th ArtMgDiv and so on. Here you could see some data, courtesy of one other Ru member: Independent motor rifle brigade (only relevant combat units detailed): - Command & HQ - Motor rifle battalion (x3) -- Command & HQ -- Motor rifle company (x3; 30 BMP/BTR total)* * - each company assigned ~3 MANPADS (stored in vehicles) --- Command element (1 command BMP/BTR) ---- Company commander ---- Senior technician ---- Staff sergeant ---- Medical instructor ---- Squad commander ---- Senior driver ---- Gunner-operator (BMP) / Gunner (BTR) ---- RTO ---- Ground radar recon station operator --- Motor rifle platoon (x3) ---- Commander ---- Deputy commander ---- Motor rifle squad (x3; 1 BMP/BTR each) ----- Commander ----- Senior rifleman ----- Gunner-operator (BMP) / Gunner (BTR) ----- Machinegunner ----- Machinegunner assistant ----- RPG operator ----- RPG operator assistant ----- Rifleman ----- Driver -- Mortar battery (6 2S12 120mm mortars and 6 MT-LB carriers total) --- Fire platoon (x2; 3 mortars and 3 MT-LB each) --- Art. recon, positioning, comms units (not detailed) -- Grenade launcher platoon (6 AGS-17/30 and 3 BMP/BTR total) --- Commander --- Grenade launcher squad (x3; 2 AGS and 1 BMP/BTR each) ---- Commander ---- Gunner (x2; AGS) ---- Assistant (x2) ---- Gunner-operator (BMP) / Gunner (BTR) ---- Driver -- AT platoon (9 ATGM launchers and 3 BTR total) - BTR-equipped units only --- Commander --- ATGM squad (x3; 3 ATGM launchers and 1 BTR each) ---- Commander ---- Senior operator (x3; ATGM) ---- Operator (x3) ---- Gunner (BTR) ---- Driver -- Recon platoon (1 BRM and 2 BMP/BTR total) --- Commander --- Recon squad (1 BRM) ---- Commander ---- Senior driver ---- Senior RTO - scout ---- Scout - RPG operator ---- Scout - radar recon station operator ---- Gunner (BRM) ---- RTO - scout --- Recon squad (x2; 1 BMP/BTR each) ---- Commander ---- Senior scout ---- Scout - sniper ---- Scout - machinegunner ---- Scout - RTO ---- Scout - sapper ---- Scout ---- Gunner-operator (BMP) / Gunner (BTR) ---- Driver -- Engineering-sapper platoon -- C3 platoon (2 HQ BMP/BTR, 1 BMP/BTR) -- Support and supply platoon -- Medical platoon - Tank battalion -- Command & HQ -- Tank company (x4; 40 MBT total) --- Command element (1 command MBT) --- Tank platoon (x3; 3 MBT) -- С3 platoon (1 command MBT, 1 HQ BMP, 1 BMP) -- Technical support platoon -- Supply platoon -- Medical platoon - Recon battalion - Howitzer self-propelled artillery squadron (x2; 36 2S3 / 2S19 152mm SPH total) - Rocket artillery squadron (18 BM-21 122mm MLRS total) - Anti-air missile squadron (12 9K33 (SA-8) / 9K330 (SA-15) SAM systems total) - Anti-air missle-artillery squadron (6/8 2K22 (SA-19) SP missile-gun AA systems, 6 9K35 (SA-13) SAM systems and 27 MANPADS total) - Anti-tank squadron (12/24 SP ATGM systems and 12/0 towed AT guns total) - Rifle platoon (sniper) -- Command element --- Commander --- Deputy commander - sniper --- Driver - RTO -- Sniper squad (x3) --- Commander - sniper --- Senior rifleman - sniper (x3) --- Sniper - observer (x4) - Various support units Independent tank brigade (units composition same as above): - Command & HQ - Tank battalion (x3; 123 MBT total) - Motor rifle battalion (~ 36 BMP total) - Recon battalion - Howitzer self-propelled artillery squadron (18 2S3 / 2S19 152mm SPH total) - Rocket artillery squadron (18 BM-21 122mm MLRS total) - Anti-air missile squadron (12 9K33 (SA-8) / 9K330 (SA-15) SAM systems total) - Anti-air missle-artillery squadron (6/8 2K22 (SA-19) SP missile-gun AA systems, 6 9K35 (SA-13) SAM systems and 27 MANPADS total) - Rifle platoon (sniper) - Various support units 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Note, various BDes would have different OOBs (as did Soviet units/formations), this OOB is relevant to the BDes after the first wave of reforms and may not be relevant to the 2017 vintages BDes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 It is, MLRS is used in that role, I know. However, MLRS is not comparable with Grad, but rather with the high end systems such as the Smerch and Uragan. I mean, you don't ask why TOS-1 lacks GPS guided rounds, do you? Grad is used in the role of cluster grid square removal system on BDe level, not precise deep strike system such as Smerch or new unitaric MLRS rounds. Many things were designed to do different jobs, but upgrades and enhanced munitions allow them to perform others equally well. Just because it wasn't originally conceived to do something means that it shouldn't. The Russian attitude to this inflexibility is staggering and an indication of truly how behind the times doctrinally you guys are. I'm not asking about buratino because its not in the game... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Many things were designed to do different jobs, but upgrades and enhanced munitions allow them to perform others equally well. Just because it wasn't originally conceived to do something means that it shouldn't. The Russian attitude to this inflexibility is staggering and an indication of truly how behind the times doctrinally you guys are. I'm not asking about buratino because its not in the game... The point is that we lack the requirement for such munition for Grad, thus we do not waste money developing it. Why we don't have such a requirement? Because such 122mm round (for Grad) does not offer any advantage over 152mm howitzer rounds, while the MLRS (and other heavy Rocket arty such as Smerch) rounds offer range advantage and could be used for special missions - for example taking out hostile artillery or other high values assets in the enemy depth (where 152/155mm rounds won't reach). So it is not inflexibility, it is just good financial sense. Edited February 1, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 It is flexibility though, because its essence is platforms that can perform multiple functions... Its clear that I'm not getting anywhere here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennay Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 you would also have to train more people on those multiple functions and supply the ammo/ produce it in different calibers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 It is flexibility though, because its essence is platforms that can perform multiple functions... Its clear that I'm not getting anywhere here. Additional "flexibility" leads to less common ammunition stocks, increase in system cost and so on. In a number of instances, when the additional capability is not significant, it is not worth acquiring as the increase in useful capability does not over come the increase in costs/complexity. In case of the Grad the new rounds do not bring any improvements in terms of capability, as their role is already taken by the 152mm guns, which are already available at BDe level (they do the same job the same way). However it reduces the key Grad capability (timely destruction of high value enemy groupings) and increases the system complexity/cost (it now requires a sub system to feed target coordinates into the rounds). On the other hand GPS guided rounds do make good sense for tube artillery and the high end rocket artillery systems, as it provides them a new and useful capability - to provide high precision point missions in direct support of the troops with tube artillery and the ability to destroy point high value targets with high end rocket artillery systems. Which is why such munition types are designed/procured for the MLRS/Smerch and the 155mm/152mm artillery systems So, in general the GPS guided rounds are useful, just not for the 122mm rocket systems and flexibility for flexibility's sake is just plainly stupid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) ikalugin, Info on Ugroza, the add-on laser guidance system for Grad and previously unguided air-to-ground rockets. If the info is correct (have no idea either way) the Grad version of the system was shelved in 2010. Regards, John Kettler Edited February 2, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Ah, that, I forgot that they advertised the Grad variant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Additional "flexibility" leads to less common ammunition stocks, increase in system cost and so on. In a number of instances, when the additional capability is not significant, it is not worth acquiring as the increase in useful capability does not over come the increase in costs/complexity. In case of the Grad the new rounds do not bring any improvements in terms of capability, as their role is already taken by the 152mm guns, which are already available at BDe level (they do the same job the same way). However it reduces the key Grad capability (timely destruction of high value enemy groupings) and increases the system complexity/cost (it now requires a sub system to feed target coordinates into the rounds). On the other hand GPS guided rounds do make good sense for tube artillery and the high end rocket artillery systems, as it provides them a new and useful capability - to provide high precision point missions in direct support of the troops with tube artillery and the ability to destroy point high value targets with high end rocket artillery systems. Which is why such munition types are designed/procured for the MLRS/Smerch and the 155mm/152mm artillery systems So, in general the GPS guided rounds are useful, just not for the 122mm rocket systems and flexibility for flexibility's sake is just plainly stupid. I would disagree, in my eyes it would be a valuable force multiplier. Imagine providing the rebels with a handfull of gps guided rounds for their older grad systems, imagine what a few precision rounds could do to carefully chosen targets whos gps coordinates could be gleaned from simple open source imagery. Thankfully I dont work for the other side or they might start getting ideas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Or you supply the same rounds for the Msta-Bs they have, which would get that job done without being detrimental to the main capability of Grad-area saturation that is. As firing "few" rounds (before moving away) undermines the strong points of Grad - it's rate of fire and salvo size while being natural to the Msta-Bs. Note that there is no range advantage for the Grad, the kind you would get from the MLRS class system. Edited February 2, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Or you supply the same rounds for the Msta-Bs they have, which would get that job done without being detrimental to the main capability of Grad-area saturation that is. As firing "few" rounds (before moving away) undermines the strong points of Grad - it's rate of fire and salvo size while being natural to the Msta-Bs. Note that there is no range advantage for the Grad, the kind you would get from the MLRS class system. Not that this isnt true. In the west, If i wanted to put a precision round somewhere - I could chose about 10 ways of doing so probably with the same number of platforms. Not just tube artillery. That is the essense of flexible capability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.